Independent assessment of violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the Charles River Laboratories in Wilmington, MA in 2005

Four areas of discussion need to be included as follows:

1) The protection of laboratory animals from needless pain,
suffering, anxiety and stress before during and after experimentation.

2) The maintenance of a clean, healthy environment for study
animals.

3) The relevance and validity of the study being done.

4) The chain of command and protocol in carrying out the ANIMAL
WELFARE ACT at this facility.

After reviewing a number of experiments that were carried out at the
Charles River Laboratories during 2005 I find the facility to be in need
of revision. Sloppy record keeping, incompetence and apathy appear to be
the main problems at the facility.

The chain of command and its ability to carry out the agreement
between the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, IACUC, the
veterinary staff and the principal investigator, PI, is seriously
flawed. It appears that there is a lack of commitment to maintain the
best care for animals in this facility. Any animal housed and utilized
for laboratory purposes is automatically placed under abnormal stress
and anxiety even in the best of conditions.

The inattention to animal welfare is demonstrated in a number of
cases:

Dog # 514209 was in need of veterinary care on 8/9/05 and was
attended on 8/12/05.

Pig # 16342 was noted 8/9/05. There was no documentation that there
was a problem. Eventually the veterinarian was notified and took care
of the problem.

On July 25th, 2005 there were experiments that involved drug testing
resulting in the death and moribund condition of a number of animals.
The way these experiments were carried out created unnecessary pain,
suffering and anxiety. Procedures carried out in this manner lead to
questionable scientific data retrieval.

The PI was at fault and serious consequences should be considered and
utilized to resolve such situations.

Under current regulations the only time a procedure can be utilized
that might create pain and suffering, is where the scientific outcome
could be affected. I would like to see this changed. Our advancement in
computer modeling and simulation should replace the type of
experimentation that causes pain and suffering to produce the correct
scientific results.

On January 25th 2005, Freundís Complete Adjuvant was used in animals
thereby producing a severe immune response. The IACUC did not expect
this outcome and the PI did not address the untoward reaction. This led
to unnecessary pain, suffering and anxiety. There have to be
consequences for actions like this.

There must be a careful review of the facility by the grant funding
agencies like NIH, NCI, NSF and others before any money is released. If
there is redundancy or if proposals cannot meet high standards then
grant funding should be withheld. If the experiment can meet scientific
standards without the use of live animals then the granting agency and
staff at the facility should encourage installation of approaches using
computer modeling and simulation.

Immediate improvements must be installed to remedy problems in the
chain of command. This includes health, welfare and maintenance of
animals, relief of pain and suffering before, during and after the
experimental procedure or procedures, and improvement of general
conditions in the facility. Failure to meet humane standards should
require outside intervention. This would include review by state and
federal agencies in charge and further review by elected officials
representing the public.

The Charles River Laboratory facilities are in need of immediate
oversight to correct current and ongoing negligence.